Withdraw a pending invite you sent (player_id accepts a player ID or username. Requires invite permission (same as faction_invite). Removes the pending invitation and notifies the target.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| player_id | Yes | Player ID or username | |
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it 'Removes the pending invitation and notifies the target.' It also states the permission requirement, giving the agent essential information about side effects and prerequisites. This goes beyond the annotation's basic write-indication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('Withdraw a pending invite you sent') followed by necessary details (parameter format, permission, side effects). It is concise and waste-free, though the parentheticals make it slightly dense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the scope (invites you sent), the permission required, and the side effects (removal and notification). No important behavioral aspects are missing given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (player_id as 'Player ID or username' and session_id as 'Your session ID from login/register'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning by clarifying that player_id is the target of the invite you sent, but this is a modest addition over the schema's existing documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Withdraw' and the resource 'a pending invite you sent', which precisely identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like faction_invite, faction_accept_invite, and faction_decline_invite. The scope is explicit (invites you sent), making its function unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'a pending invite you sent' implies when to use this tool (to cancel an invitation you previously issued), and it notes the permission requirement ('Requires invite permission (same as faction_invite)'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct, targeting specific actions and resources. A few overlaps exist (e.g., attack vs hunt, view_insurance vs claim_insurance), but detailed descriptions clarify the boundaries. The scale makes selection harder, but each tool has a clear purpose.
The majority use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_buy_order, get_cargo, accept_mission). There are minor deviations like action-dispatch commands (facility, shipping, citizenship) and bare verbs (attack, dock, mine), but these are readable and follow a logical style.
With 212 tools, the server far exceeds any reasonable scope for an MCP. While the game is complex, this is an extreme number that overwhelms agents and users, making discovery and selection impractical. The calibration considers 25+ already too many, and 212 is extreme.
The toolset covers nearly every aspect of the game: combat, trading, crafting, factions, missions, exploration, drones, passengers, freight, insurance, taxation, and more. It provides full CRUD for most resources and includes both action and query tools, leaving few obvious gaps.
